FREUD BTFO

We are criticizing psychoanalysis for having used Oedipal enunciation to make patients believe they would produce individual, personal statements, and would finally speak in their own name. The trap was set from the start: never will the Wolf-Man speak. Talk as he might about wolves, howl as he might like a wolf, Freud does not even listen; he glances at his dog and answers, 'It's daddy.' For as long as that lasts, Freud calls it neurosis; when it cracks, it's psychosis.

...at the very moment the subject is persuaded that he or she will be uttering the most individual of statements, he or she is deprived of all basis for enunciation. Silence people, prevent them from speaking, and above all, when they do speak, pretend they haven't said a thing: the famous psychoanalytic neutrality.

The Wolf-Man keeps howling: Six wolves! Seven wolves! Freud says, How's that? Goats, you say? How interesting. Take away the goats and all you have left is a wolf, so it's your father.

>'It's daddy.'
As if Freud can be reduced to such a simple phrase.

Git gud

yep it actually can
i can't believe the amount of freud nuthuggers that exist in this board it amazes me

Guattari was a psychoanalyst while Deleuze was influenced by Freud and Lacan's theories of drives, repetition, erogeneity, etc.

It's just the Oedipal theater model of the unconscious that they had trouble with. What the quote in the OP doesn't show is that for D&G, even if the Oedipus Complex theory is correct, psychoanalysis still can't provide a solution to people's problems precisely because it gets stuck itself in the Complex while reducing everything to it. Maybe there are analysts out there who are much more subtle about it, but D&G had trouble with those who received patients stressed by social injustice for example abd who could only ask them about mommy and daddy.

*and

yall should read the anti-oedipus papers and that new aaron schuster book on deleuze and psychoanalysis

to take anti-oedipus at face value is pretty dumdum and to treat the book as a one and done piledriver to all of psychoanalysis from freud to lacan and on is also pretty dumdum

shit ain't that simple. freud isn't that simple, reich isn't, klein isn't, horney isn't, winnicott isn't, horney isn't, etc., etc., and neither are deleuze and guattari... to think what D&G were railing against was people reading and discussing psychoanalysis is ridiculous; it was against what they understood to be certain elements latent in psychoanalysis (and this argument is only in capitalism & schizophrenia, not deleuze's stronger earlier works) that produced the horror of 20th century institutional psychoanalysis.

sorry by yall i meant people like op and

you can reduce late freud, after he became big business, to 'it's daddy', if you want

early freud is nothing like it

can you recommend some books to read for someone interested in the history of psychoanalysis both as philosophy/science and practice/institution

Even if we knew wolfspeak how could we understand what the Wolf-Man is saying?

>all this talk about something that has no empirical evidence whatsoever.

>muh oedipus complex

Show some evidence, like a real scientist.

What bothers me the most is that D&G want to exchange the theory of the deficient being by their concept of a machine désirante. Its like they want to abolish negative thinking with their ideology of the positive and wishfulness.

freud has been btfo'd long ago, everybody knows this except the plebs who still think he is the greatest psycho analyst ever
just read lacan desu

what is awesome, btw

>MUH EVIDENCE

I mean this is a sentiment brought up before D&G, most obviously by Adorno. It's totally valid to say that institutionalized analysis can often serve to neutralize subjective struggles. But Freud? I mean, you read him, and you interpret him. Or you read him and you don't interpret him, and you make an erotic gesture out of his language (to use Sontag's vocabulary). But to not read him or to read him ideologically or in a non-reflexive way isn't going to get you anywhere, which is okay, if you don't want to get anywhere on those terms. But a lot of pretty cool people seemed to find something interesting in Freud, which was pretty much enough for me to pick him up, and I definitely don't regret it.

evidence can be found in other ways then scientific empiricism

obviously

Reminds me of cognitive behavioral therapy. There can still be deficiency (not in the sense of lack, but of being overcome by an unhealthy desire) in their work, it's just differently explained.

the draw of psychoanalysis is that it promises a world that is entirely determined by the past

but in reality (here and tomorrow), from the perspective of the end of time, our future will always be more important than the past

shitty freud apologism

D&G are incredibly anti-Freud

d&g had said a few times that early freud is neat, the problem is what happened after

The funny thing is Oedipus loved his adoptive father. Freud gave a shit reading of the Sophocles play and no one has questioned it.

d&g did it.

"Let's go all the way, the wolves are 'all the fathers and doctors in the world; but the Wolf-Man thinks, 'You trying to tell me my ass isn't a wolf?'"

The wolves will have to be purged of their mutiplicity. This operation is accomplished by associating the dream with the tale, «The Wolf and the Seven Kid-Goats» (only six of which get eaten). We witness Freud's reductive glee; we literally see mutiplicity leave the wolves to take the shape of goats that have absolutely nothing to do with the story. Seven wolves that are only kid-goats. Six wolves: the seventh goat (the Wolf-Man himself) is hiding in the clock. Five wolves: he may have seen his parents make love at five o'clock, and the roman numeral V is associated with the erotic spreading of a woman's legs. Three wolves: the parents may have made love three times. Two wolves: the first coupling the child may have seen was the two parents more ferarum, or perhaps even two dogs. One wolf: the wolf is the father, as we all knew from the start. Zero wolves: he lost his tail, he is not just a castrater but also castrated.

Who is Freud trying to fool? The wolves never had a chance to get away and save their pack: it was already decided from the very beginning that animals could serve only to represent coitus between parents, or, conversely, be represented by coitus between parents. Freud obviously knows nothing about the fascination exerted by wolves and the meaning of their silent call,. The call to become-wolf. Wolves watch, intently watch, the dreaming child; it is so much more reassuring to tell oneself that the dream produced a reversal and that it is really the child who sees dogs or parents in the act of making love. Freud only knows the Oedipalized wolf or dog, the castrated-castrating daddy-wolf, the dog in the kennel, the analyst's bow-wow.

Sometimes i'm so grateful to life for not turning d&g in a meme Veeky Forums writer like nietzsche-dfw-joyce

thank you, Veeky Forums, for letting me read my d&g in peace

In truth, Freud sees nothing and understands nothing. He has no idea what a libidinal assemblage is, with all the machineries it brings into play, all the multiple loves.

Castration! Castration! Cries the psychoanalytic scarecrow, who never saw more than a hole, a father or a dog where wolves are, a domesticated individual where there are wild multiplicities.

It's just a matter of time.

> muh buggery

They are not as easy to talk about, that's for sure.

thank god

Don't thank us. Their philosophy resists co-option by memes.